University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Trijicon, Inc. v. Sebelius FA-DC-0007
Docket / Court 1:13-cv-01207 ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Speech and Religious Freedom
Special Collection Contraception Insurance Mandate
Case Summary
On August 5, 2013, a for-profit company filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of D.C. under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health ... read more >
On August 5, 2013, a for-profit company filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of D.C. under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs, represented by a public interest firm, asked the court for an exception to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage of contraception. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that providing insurance coverage of contraception would violate the religious beliefs of the corporation's owners.

On August 14, 2013, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and stayed case. The court ordered the defendant not to enforce the ACA insurance mandate regarding contraception against the plaintiff until 30 days after the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , which involved similar legal issues and the same defendant as this case. Gilardi was held while the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. On June 30, 2014, the court held that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA, when applied to closely-held for-profit corporations.

Following this ruling, the district court reviewed recommendations for further proceedings that the parties submitted. On October 8, 2014, the court noted that the parties agreed that the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction following the Hobby Lobby precedent, but disagreed over the scope of the injunction. The court instructed the parties to file supplemental memorandum detailing the injunction language they support or object to. The parties did this on October 29, 2014, but as of July 31, 2016, the court has not recorded an order.

Mallory Jones - 10/09/2013
Richard Jolly - 04/05/2014
Kate Craddock - 07/31/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Establishment Clause
Free Exercise Clause
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Discrimination-basis
Religion discrimination
General
Abortion
Contraception
Religious programs / policies
Plaintiff Type
Closely-held (for profit) corporation
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Non-government for profit
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ยงยง 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Plaintiff Description For-profit company seeking exemption from the ACA's contraception mandate.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing FA-DC-0004 : Gilardi v. Dep't of Health and Human Services [Gilardi v. Sebelius] (D.D.C.)
Docket(s)
1:13-cv-1207 (D.D.C.) 08/15/2013
FA-DC-0007-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 08/05/2013
FA-DC-0007-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction 08/07/2013
FA-DC-0007-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 08/14/2013 (D.D.C.)
FA-DC-0007-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Sullivan, Emmet G. (D.D.C.)
FA-DC-0007-0002 | FA-DC-0007-0003 | FA-DC-0007-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Aden, Steven H. (Virginia)
FA-DC-0007-0001
Baylor, Gregory S. (District of Columbia)
FA-DC-0007-0001
Bowman, Matthew S. (District of Columbia)
FA-DC-0007-0001 | FA-DC-0007-9000
Cortman, David A. (Georgia)
FA-DC-0007-0001
Schowengerdt, Dale (Arizona)
FA-DC-0007-0001
Tedesco, Jeremy D. (Arizona)
FA-DC-0007-0001
Theriot, Kevin H. (Kansas)
FA-DC-0007-0001
Defendant's Lawyers Berwick, Benjamin Leon (District of Columbia)
FA-DC-0007-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -